For Heavens Sake At the end of the day, one can have a disagreement for only one of two

reasons. Hopefully, what is at stake is the sacred pursuit of truth, be it in an academic, theoretical realm, or in the implementation of some beneficial action, small or large. Alternatively, and far more ignobly, there is the quest for domination, intellectual or actual. In the final analysis, it can really only be one or the other. For our Sages, the debates which Hillel and Shammai had with one another were the paragon of legitimate, purposeful, and constructive disagreement, makhloket lshem shamayim1, a dispute for the sake of Heaven. On the other hand, the rebellion which Korach and his followers launched against Moshe and Aharon serves as the poster child for reprehensible divisiveness, as the mishnah continues, what is a dispute which is not for the sake of Heaven? The dispute of Korach and his followers. What is of greatest moment, of course, is our self-assessment, as it pertains to circumstances of discord. Sometimes, even if we have the insight to know that weve become embroiled in some kind of power play, extraction is a different matter altogether, shackled as we so often are by the bonds of ego. Human nature being what it is, the limiting step is most often the first one, simply identifying when our ego is the driving force. Indeed, as our Sages noted long ago, a person sees everyones blemishes, except his own2. With characteristic understatement and subtlety, Chazal gave us an excellent litmus test for making precisely this assessment. As noted by many, the formulation ought to have been, the dispute between Korach and his followers, against Moshe and Aharon. Structural parallelism clearly dictates that both parties to the dispute ought to have been referenced. Why, then, did Chazal so pointedly omit any mention of Moshe or Aharon? It seems to me that the answer is equal parts simple and poignant. Korach and his followers, aggrieved at perceived slights of various natures, had no interest in anything Moshe or Aharon had to say. Moshe and Aharon were obstacles to Korach and his followers hunger for power, prestige, and domination. In Buberian terms, the dispute was all I-it and no I-thou. Small wonder, then, that Moshe and Aharon do not appear in the mishnah; there was no exchange of ideas to be had, and no openness to an alternative perspective. In an absolute sense, Korach could not see Moshe or Aharon, and did not wish to do so. In productive disputes, both parties should ultimately be grateful for the presence of the other. If one is truly interested in finding the truth, it can only be helpful to have the opposing voice represented,
1 2

Mishnah Avot, Chapter 5. Mishnah Negaim, Chapter 2.

and the more articulately, the better. It provides for the honing of logic and the delineation of sound lines of situational reasoning. If we find ourselves totally unwilling to recognize a dissenting view, it is probably a good time to ask ourselves what our real motivation for having the dispute is in the first place.